Page 1 of 70

The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:19 am
by Kaiserholt
No matter the source of news, an incident happened last night on the University of California campus at Berkeley. In response to a scheduled talk by Milo Yiannopoulos, crowds assembled to shut down the talk. Not to listen to what Milo was going to say, not to ask him questions after the talk, and certainly not to make sure that people interested in listening to an opinion had a chance to consider other points of view.

As Milo himself has said in the past, if somebody is wrong talk about it. Shine the light on it. But apparently those outside the venue couldn't afford to have any lights shown on opinions they disagree with.

On the other side, the protesting side, they apparently take the Noam Chomsky position; "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” If an opinion is unacceptable, you apparently have license to limit it.

Whatever one's opinion of Milo is, does that opinion really validate the decision to shut down free speech? Especially on a campus meant for higher education?

Is the modern University not the last place where free speech should knuckle under to the rule of the brick? Or is that a dreadfully 20th-century opinion?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:21 am
by Alvecia
Poor Milo. The university really should have provided him with some kind of space that is safe from this kind of interference.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:22 am
by Uiiop
While i disagree with rioting and smashing nearby coffee places....
A line has to be drawn on what is acceptable(At least in public plaforms) and a person who goes afters students and advocates harassment of them has crossed that line.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yi ... aukee.html
"I will close with this advice. Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person. It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life. "

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:26 am
by Philjia
Your right to free speech protects you from the government. Just because you want to spew crap, nobody has to listen, or let you have a place to say it.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:29 am
by Uiiop
Philjia wrote:Your right to free speech protects you from the government. Just because you want to spew crap, nobody has to listen, or let you have a place to say it.

Tbf some people view it as something ought to implemented more than that...so while i kinda agree in this case stating the practical manifestation doesn't show why the idealized version is flawed.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:30 am
by Philjia
Uiiop wrote:
Philjia wrote:Your right to free speech protects you from the government. Just because you want to spew crap, nobody has to listen, or let you have a place to say it.

Tbf some people view it as something ought to implemented more than that...so while i kinda agree in this case stating the practical manifestation doesn't show why the idealized version is flawed.


But for it to be otherwise would limit people's right to protest.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:31 am
by Uiiop
Philjia wrote:
Uiiop wrote:Tbf some people view it as something ought to implemented more than that...so while i kinda agree in this case stating the practical manifestation doesn't show why the idealized version is flawed.


But for it to be otherwise would limit people's right to protest.

Elaborate on why this is the case....

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:32 am
by Vassenor
Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:32 am
by Radiatia
It's remarkable how similar these so-called "anti-fascists" are to the SA...

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:33 am
by Radiatia
Vassenor wrote:Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?
\

Peaceful protest is fine and welcome. This wasn't peaceful protest - this was people being violent thugs.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:33 am
by Philjia
Uiiop wrote:
Philjia wrote:
But for it to be otherwise would limit people's right to protest.

Elaborate on why this is the case....


The students protesting against Milo were exercising their own right to free speech. What makes Milo's right more important than theirs?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:34 am
by Vassenor
Radiatia wrote:
Vassenor wrote:Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?
\

Peaceful protest is fine and welcome. This wasn't peaceful protest - this was people being violent thugs.


How so?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:37 am
by Vassenor
I do also have to wonder. If this was an Islamist preaching hate against America, would everyone still be defending their right to free speech so slavishly?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:37 am
by Balochistan and New York
If Trump gets to say the shit he wants, Milo should to.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:38 am
by Vassenor
Balochistan and New York wrote:If Trump gets to say the shit he wants, Milo should to.


And if people get to protest against what the president says, they should here too.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:39 am
by Saikaya
Vassenor wrote:
Radiatia wrote:\

Peaceful protest is fine and welcome. This wasn't peaceful protest - this was people being violent thugs.


How so?

The part where they smashed windows and rioted.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:39 am
by Uiiop
Philjia wrote:
Uiiop wrote:Elaborate on why this is the case....


The students protesting against Milo were exercising their own right to free speech. What makes Milo's right more important than theirs?

They don't....some would allow them to be peaceful but make sure the facility doesn't listen to them.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:39 am
by Isyrannaea
Vassenor wrote:
Balochistan and New York wrote:If Trump gets to say the shit he wants, Milo should to.


And if people get to protest against what the president says, they should here too.

Except this was a riot, not a protest.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:40 am
by Vassenor
Isyrannaea wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
And if people get to protest against what the president says, they should here too.

Except this was a riot, not a protest.


And this invalidates the principle how?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:41 am
by Isyrannaea
Vassenor wrote:
Isyrannaea wrote:Except this was a riot, not a protest.


And this invalidates the principle how?

You don't have a right to riot.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:41 am
by Alvecia
Saikaya wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
How so?

The part where they smashed windows and rioted.

The problem is differentiating between the peacful protestors and the violent idiots.
You could have thousands of people protesting peacfully, but it only takes one person to start a fire. The thousands shouldn't be penalised for that one idiot.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:42 am
by Uiiop
Radiatia wrote:
Vassenor wrote:Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?
\

Peaceful protest is fine and welcome. This wasn't peaceful protest - this was people being violent thugs.

People being violent is wrong but do you have proof everyone involved in the protest was like that?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:42 am
by Vassenor
Alvecia wrote:
Saikaya wrote:The part where they smashed windows and rioted.

The problem is differentiating between the peacful protestors and the violent idiots.
You could have thousands of people protesting peacfully, but it only takes one person to start a fire. The thousands shouldn't be penalised for that one idiot.


But it's hard to demonize a movement if you pay attention to what the majority do.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:44 am
by Hexgard
Alvecia wrote:Poor Milo. The university really should have provided him with some kind of space that is safe from this kind of interference.


Don't try to spin this around. So called "safe spaces" are tries at making a pocket dimension where counter argument do not exist. In this case, we see a need for protection against violence, not counter arguments.

Vassenor wrote:I do also have to wonder. If this was an Islamist preaching hate against America, would everyone still be defending their right to free speech so slavishly?


False equivalvence. That is outright hatespeech.

Philjia wrote:
Uiiop wrote:Elaborate on why this is the case....


The students protesting against Milo were exercising their own right to free speech. What makes Milo's right more important than theirs?


You do understand there were violent outbreaks in this "protest"?

Vassenor wrote:Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?


Milo does not preach hate, so what's your point?

Philjia wrote:Your right to free speech protects you from the government. Just because you want to spew crap, nobody has to listen, or let you have a place to say it.


1. He isn't asking anyone to listen to him, just to not be violent about it. You literally had students threatening others that they will make their names public as "neonazi" sympathisers if they attend a Milo speech at some college (forgot which one)
2. As much as I am aware, Milo had everything agreed with the university, that is, they gave him the place to say it.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:45 am
by Uiiop
Hexgard wrote:
Vassenor wrote:Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?


Milo does not preach hate, so what's your point?

Wrong *Sniff*
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yi ... aukee.html
"I will close with this advice. Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person. It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life. "